An Incontestable Argument for the Law of Value
- This topic has 206 replies, 8 voices, and was last updated 2 years, 1 month ago by
.
-
Posts
-
I think Engels’s definition of a commodity in his insertion well expresses what the term has always meant in Marxian economics:
“In order to become a commodity, the product must be transferred to the other person, for whom it serves as a use-value, through the medium of exchange.”
The expression used by Engels on the origin of the family is no the same one used in capitalist economic, in that time it meant products in a pre capitalist society. That is my point
Yes, there has been some discussion as to whether products for sale in pre-capitalist societies where production for sale wasn’t the dominant mode (such as Ancient Greece and Rome) would be subject to the same economic laws as in a predominantly production-for-sale economy. For example, some of the products put on sale might be the surplus of a producer over and above their own needs, most of their production being for their own direct use. In such cases, would the price of what was sold reflect the amount of labour-time required to produce them?
Those societies were producers of products but they were not producers of commodities
https://networks.h-net.org/node/11717/reviews/5678237/smith-mattick-theory-critique-essays-capital
Paul mattick on Marx concept of commodity and the law of value
https://files.libcom.org/files/kliman.pdf
Kilman on Marx concept of commodity and the law of value
I’ve taken cognisance of Narx’s position on what seems to be the fundamental distinction between a commodity and a non-commodity. Nevertheless, it seems to be flawed fundamentally. Marx, evidently, disregarded the obvious fact that both the ‘use values’ meant for the producers’ self-satisfaction and the ‘social use values’ ( being products of human labour, both of them essentially share something in common, namely, some valueexchange-value), the stuff every commodity must essentially possess. This constitutes a serious limitation of Marx’s view of commodities, as I see it.
an addendum:
Marx also failed to consider the fact that it’s the value (measured in terms of the socially necessary labour-time (SNL) expended to produce the thing) that makes both the ‘use values’ meant for the producers’ self-satisfaction and the ‘social use values’ exchangeable in accordance with the following formula. If x hours of SNL is incorporated in a kilo of rice, and if y hours of SNL is incorporated in a pair of trousers, then xy hours of SNL= y kilos of rice= x pairs of trousers.Such called Karl inconsistence have been widely clarified by Andrew Kilman, Paul Mattick and Peter Hudis, it is not a new argumentation
On this thesis Peter Hudis swept the floor with those Karl Marx inconsistence, promoted by bourgeois economists and anarchists
Book Review: Socialism and Commodity Production: Essay in Marx Revival by Paresh Chattopadhyay, Leiden and Boston, MA: Brill, 2018; 308 pp.: ISBN 9004231641.
By George Liodakis
On the issue of commodity production, Engels and many socialist thinkers after him have argued that commodity production preceded capitalism and this implies that the law of value also applies to pre-capitalist societies (p. 101). The author, however, following Marx, points out that commodity production was only partial in pre-capitalist societies, ‘involving the exchange of surplus over immediate consumption, and the basic aim of production was use value and not exchange value’ (p. 230). Hence, the law of value cannot apply to these societies. Commodity production was generalized only under the capitalist mode of production and, therefore, the law of value singularly concerns the historical period of capitalism. As stressed by Marx himself, ‘the law of value for its full development presupposes a society of big industrial production and free competition, that is, the modern bourgeois society’ (p. 116, 149).
Marx also observes that ‘the value form of the commodity is the economic cell-form of the bourgeois society’ and the author correctly points out that, in socialism, ‘the negation of capital automatically signifies negating exchange value or the product taking the form of the commodity’ (p. 63). As regards the ‘associated mode of production’, it is also noted that ‘This “union of free individuals”, the crowning point of the producers’ act of self-emancipation … excludes, by definition, private property in the means of production, the commodity form of the product of labour, wage labour and state’ (p. 232).
Many mistakes made by Engels were used by the Bolsheviks to justify their state capitalist mode of production, and wage slavery.
Engels was wrong when he said that the commodity existed in a pre capitalist society, right there it does show that there were difference between Marx and Engels, a point that has been argued by the Marxist Humanists, and that the Origin of the family and private property was not Marx legacy, it was Engels legacy
In some part of his life Engels subscribed himself to the Collapasist theory, and then he changed his point of view, and it has been proven that capitalism will not collapse by itself
Reading the Ethnological notebooks of Marx we can also see that that observation is correct, by the same token the Marxist Humanists are wrong when they argue that Marx indicated that socialism could have been established in a pre capitalist society, and that is completely wrong.
Commodity production will no exist in a socialist society, as well wage slaves will not exist either, that is called market socialism, the same system that exist in Vietnam.
Socialism it is the total negation of the market system, and the law of buying and selling.
If commodity will exist in a socialist society it would be better to stay within the frame of a capitalist society and continue being a wage slaves, those are argumentation made by the Leninists and the bolsheviks to justify the existence of wage slavery. Period
Here are some key definitions in basic Marxian economics from An A to Z of Marxismon this site.
Commodity. Commodities are items of wealth that have been produced for sale. Commodities have been produced in pre-capitalist societies, but such production was marginal. It is only in capitalism that it becomes the dominant mode of production, where goods and services are produced for sale with a view to profit.
Under capitalism the object of commodity production is the realisation of profit when the commodities have been sold. These profits are mostly re-invested and accumulated as capital. Commodities must be capable of being reproduced, and this includes the uniquely capitalist commodity of human labour power.
Value. A social relationship between people which expresses itself as a material relationship between things. The value of a commodity is determined by the quantity of socially necessary abstract labour time needed for its production and reproduction from start to finish. Price is the monetary expression of value in a market.
Exchange value. A relative magnitude which expresses the relationship between two commodities. The proportion in which commodities tend to exchange with each other depends upon the amount of socially necessary labour-time spent in producing and reproducing them from start to finish. Commodities sell at market prices that rise and fall according to market conditions around a point regulated by their value and, more specifically, their price of production.
Prices of production. In Marxian economic theory the ‘price of production’ is the price sufficient to yield the average rate of profit on capital advanced. From a business’s point of view this is cost price plus what the market will bear. Actual market prices fluctuate around prices of production through the equalisation of profit rates.
https://www.socialist.net/marx-s-capital-chapter-one-the-commodity.htm
Most groups that indicate that commodity existed in pre capitalist society are based on Engels statement
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1951/economic-problems/ch04.htm
In this article Joseph Stalin is saying that the law of value and the production of commodity existed in the Soviet Union, therefore, the soviet economy was based on the capitalist mode of production. Marx indicated that the law of value is only applicable to the capitalist society
Prakash, I have some questions for you.
What do you mean by “social use-vale”? That is not a category that is used by Marx.
How do you see “value” as being distinct from “exchange-value”, if it is at all?
You speak of “Social necessary labour time”. What is this and how is it calculated? Is all labour “socially necessary” and if not what determines which labour is “socially necessary” and which is not?
Come to think of it, what do you think the “law of value” actually is? Can you explain in a few sentences?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.